On 12/18/06, Mariano Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok but my point is now more related to the fact that CakePHP founding > elements are property of the public domain and knowledge.
I agree with you completely on this. But then again I point you to the Eolas and PanIP case. Especially the PanIP case, where they managed to patent the online shopping cart! Patents were issued to these corps on things that should be blindingly obvious to anyone in our field. As I have pointed out again and again, it does *not* matter if what's in the patent filing is public domain and knowledge: all it takes is money, enough patent applications, and a lazy examiner to get your patent on an "invention". I think it is also worth noting that the way you arrange the words on your patent filing also affects how "patentable" your "invention" is. If you don't want to take the time to read up on the Eolas and PanIP cases, then I think the most notorious patent case should suffice: Amazon's 1-Click patent. > Let's see, CakePHP follows programming patterns established on the > developers such as MVC, Active Record, etc. These, IMHO can't be patented. This is all very subjective, plus you neglect to consider the "patent examiner" factor. > Otherwise almost any self-respected framework / product in *any* programming > language would be liable to law suits. So information, as we all know, that > is part of the general knowledge can't be patented, no matter how many tries > you send to the patent office. Again you do not consider the "patent examiner" factor. It is *not* impossible to get a patent on something that is "general knowledge". Read the PanIP case: they managed to patent the online shopping cart! Something that is ubiquitous and common and "general knowledge". Yes, the foundations on which CakePHP is based upon is general knowledge to us programmers or to anyone who has read the GoF book. But the question here is: are all the patent examiners in the USPTO as savvy about these things as you and I are. Also, patent examiners have a quota that they must meet every year. This is one of the major flaws in the US patent system IMHO. They have set it upon themselves to reward *quantity* and not *quality*. Just look at the 1-Click patent as the prime example from now on. At it's core, the patent describes a way of storing state in the browser for a user's session with the store. To a programmer familiar with how the HTTP works, the most obvious approach to this is to use a HTTP cookie to store the user's session ID and link this ID to a record in the database. Why the heck is that an "invention"? What may be obvious to you and I may seem "innovative" and "new" to an ignorant examiner with a quota to meet. > CakePHP is a framework that uses established patterns to help developers > build applications. In reality, there's no innovation there, it is just the > great and smart effort of how to put stuff together to ease up developing. > So there's no *unique* foundation that can be patented. Therefore, nothing > can be used later on to harass CakePHP developers. I'm inclined to make a bet with you on that :) I bet that one can get a patent from the USPTO for one of the core ideas in CakePHP. One that is unique to the way interpreted languages, and specifically PHP handles things. But I am not evil so I don't want to do it and I also don't want to reveal what this is I'm talking about, so as not to give any ideas to patent trolls that happen to stumble upon this thread. Another thing, I strongly oppose software patents and I am glad that I am in a country that neither grants them or recognizes them. In other words, I'm glad I'm not in the U.S. and A. > The case link you sent me is a completely different legal battle: D-LINK was > violating the terms of the GPL linux license, and D-LINK came back arguing > that the GPL is not a legal binding document (what a pack of bull****) Yes I know. It was to respond to your post below: >> I don't understand something. If licenses such as MIT, GPL or something are >> not protecting you against this kind of attackes, what in the name are the >> other open source projects doing towards this? It is hard for me to believe >> that all of them are subject to this potential legal issues. You asked if the MIT or GPL licenses are capable of protecting us against legal issues. I pointed you to the D-Link case because it answers your question. The key here is that: 1. The GPL stands up in court just as Eben Moglen predicted it would. A German court of law but a court of law nonetheless. D-Link's argument was that a document (in this case the GPL) cannot be considered legally binding because they have not signed it. This is where the concept of "Copyleft" comes into play. The copyright holder of the software, through the GPL, explicitly grants you the freedom to use, modify, and distribute modified copies: provided if you distribute copies you must grant the recipients of the software the same freedoms given to you by the copyright holder. I think Eben Moglen (or was it Bruce Perens) explained it best in one of his Interviews that I hear/read from somewhere. I can't remember exactly where. The gist of it is that just because you have not signed the document, it does not make it invalid. By using the copyright holder's software, you entered into an "agreement" with him to be able to use, modify and distribute the software under the GPL. If you violate those terms, the agreement between you and the copyright holder becomes void and you can no longer use, modify and distribute the software. 2. The GPL, MIT and other license only cover distribution of works under it. It does *not* protect you from submarine patent litigation. > So I don't think there's much to go under these issues. CakePHP foundation > elements and work can't be patented because they belong to the public > domain. It will be impossible for someone to patent something as the MVC > pattern just as it would be impossible for someone to patent the concept of > blogging, for that matter. That is wishful thinking. I urge you to take the time and search the USPTO website for "technology" patents or just read the patent filing made by PanIP. Here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/5,576,951 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6,289,319 Read the Abstract of both patents and tell me if what's being described there is not glaringly obvious to you. There are more of these ridiculous patents. Keywords I suggest are "computer", "automated", and "internet". I point out only the most recent and most popular cases because it makes for easy reference. The USPTO is filled with patents covering things that would be obvious to someone in a specific field. I don't want you or anyone else watching this thread to take it the wrong way. I am not here to spin FUD about CakePHP. I *really* want to use CakePHP for this project. I want to make a case for CakePHP for my employer. I want to be able to make a case for CakePHP for future employers who are wary of issues like patent litigation. I want to assure him that YES, it is safe to use CakePHP and he does not have to worry about someone suing him about patents. I want to end this discussion about what's patentable or not before it takes a turn for the worse. A lot can be learned just by searching the USPTO website. It may take you some time but I assure you, patents for ideas that are supposed to be "public domain" or "common knowledge" exist. -- _nimrod_a_abing_ [?] http://abing.gotdns.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cake PHP" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
